fate
Where did he give the GOP something major during a negotiation?

The president’s nomination of conservative Republican Chuck Hagel to his cabinet is just another example in a long line of Obama’s attempts to reach across the aisle and work with a recalcitrant Republican minority. Here are a few other gems, as we highlight some of Obama’s most bipartisan gestures of his first term and the Republican response.

1) Keeping Robert Gates as secretary of defense
In January, 2009: Obama is inaugurated and immediately seeks out Republican lawmakers willing to work with his new agenda. He makes it a point to maintain Robert Gates (previously appointed by Republican President George W. Bush) as his Secretary of Defense. Some Republicans on the Hill even whisper that Obama was working with them more than Bush ever did.
Republican response in January, 2009: Rush Limbaugh welcomes the president with a hearty “I hope he fails."

2) Obama meets with pro-choice and pro-life advocates
In May, 2009: Obama begins the first of several sessions meeting with pro-choice advocates and their detractors in order to help design legislation that protects both the lives of women and the unborn.
Republican response in September, 2009: South Carolina Representative Joe Wilson shouts “You lie!” at the president during Obama’s speech to Congress wherein he intended to reach out to Republicans and voice his concerns with our failing healthcare system and his plans to fix it. To make matters worse, fact checkers have disproved Wilson’s claim, saying that the healthcare proposal explicitly does not provide for illegal immigrants.

3) Obama listens to Republicans on health care
In January, 2010: Obama holds a meeting with Republicans in Baltimore, where he allows for a candid question-and-answer session in order to hear directly from the opposition and allow them to express their skepticism. A month later, he speaks with Republicans in what will be dubbed the “Healthcare Summit.” Obama compromised his initial plan for a single-payer system, instead seeking a Republican-promoted individual mandate mirroring the one Mitt Romney created as Governor of Massachusetts in the 1990s.
Republican response in October, 2010: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell states that the most important objective of the Republican Party is to make Obama a one-term president, not fixing our budget/debt issues, our broken healthcare, education or immigration systems, and certainly not protecting U.S. citizens from terrorist attacks.

4) Obama compromises on 2010 budget deal
In December, 2010: Obama compromises on his previously-stated goal of not prolonging the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy by agreeing to a budget deal. By doing so, Obama provides for the continuation of unemployment benefits to the needy, establishes a payroll tax holiday, renews the inheritance tax, and ensures that the government continues paying its debts.
Republican response by Spring of 2012: Senate Republicans have blocked Obama’s judicial nominees at an unprecedented rate, delaying their being placed on the bench by greater than four times more than Democrats ever did to Bush judicial nominees.

5) Obama compromises on "fiscal cliff"
On January 1st, 2013: Obama once-again compromises on a “fiscal cliff” deal by raising the threshold of the income level for whom taxes would rise from $250,000 to $400,000 for individuals and $450,000 for families and pushing back sequestration of funds allocated to the military. His deal-making resulted in the Federal government receiving even less revenues than Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner had previously offered to allow.

Your ability to remember isn't relevant.

rickyp wrote:

fate
Where did he give the GOP something major during a negotiation?

The president’s nomination of conservative Republican Chuck Hagel to his cabinet is just another example in a long line of Obama’s attempts to reach across the aisle and work with a recalcitrant Republican minority. Here are a few other gems, as we highlight some of Obama’s most bipartisan gestures of his first term and the Republican response.

1) Keeping Robert Gates as secretary of defense
In January, 2009: Obama is inaugurated and immediately seeks out Republican lawmakers willing to work with his new agenda. He makes it a point to maintain Robert Gates (previously appointed by Republican President George W. Bush) as his Secretary of Defense. Some Republicans on the Hill even whisper that Obama was working with them more than Bush ever did.
Republican response in January, 2009: Rush Limbaugh welcomes the president with a hearty “I hope he fails."

2) Obama meets with pro-choice and pro-life advocates
In May, 2009: Obama begins the first of several sessions meeting with pro-choice advocates and their detractors in order to help design legislation that protects both the lives of women and the unborn.
Republican response in September, 2009: South Carolina Representative Joe Wilson shouts “You lie!” at the president during Obama’s speech to Congress wherein he intended to reach out to Republicans and voice his concerns with our failing healthcare system and his plans to fix it. To make matters worse, fact checkers have disproved Wilson’s claim, saying that the healthcare proposal explicitly does not provide for illegal immigrants.

3) Obama listens to Republicans on health care
In January, 2010: Obama holds a meeting with Republicans in Baltimore, where he allows for a candid question-and-answer session in order to hear directly from the opposition and allow them to express their skepticism. A month later, he speaks with Republicans in what will be dubbed the “Healthcare Summit.” Obama compromised his initial plan for a single-payer system, instead seeking a Republican-promoted individual mandate mirroring the one Mitt Romney created as Governor of Massachusetts in the 1990s.
Republican response in October, 2010: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell states that the most important objective of the Republican Party is to make Obama a one-term president, not fixing our budget/debt issues, our broken healthcare, education or immigration systems, and certainly not protecting U.S. citizens from terrorist attacks.

4) Obama compromises on 2010 budget deal
In December, 2010: Obama compromises on his previously-stated goal of not prolonging the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy by agreeing to a budget deal. By doing so, Obama provides for the continuation of unemployment benefits to the needy, establishes a payroll tax holiday, renews the inheritance tax, and ensures that the government continues paying its debts.
Republican response by Spring of 2012: Senate Republicans have blocked Obama’s judicial nominees at an unprecedented rate, delaying their being placed on the bench by greater than four times more than Democrats ever did to Bush judicial nominees.

5) Obama compromises on "fiscal cliff"
On January 1st, 2013: Obama once-again compromises on a “fiscal cliff” deal by raising the threshold of the income level for whom taxes would rise from $250,000 to $400,000 for individuals and $450,000 for families and pushing back sequestration of funds allocated to the military. His deal-making resulted in the Federal government receiving even less revenues than Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner had previously offered to allow.

https://mic.com/articles/22662/5-ways-o ... .Nsv51iM7D

freeman3 wrote:It is clear that Congress was envisioning that there would be a double layer of security fencing extending for about 700 miles with "additional physical barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors" as an adjunct but not as a replacement for the fencing. By saying "shall" Congress tied the president's hands. He cannot decide that instead of fencing he can put in a wall because the statute mandates 700 miles of fencing.

So Trump's executive order is not authorized by the Secure Fencing Act unless you think 2 layers of fencing is the same as a wall. Of course in Trumpspeak I guess it is..

As for your contention that Trump's executive order should be allowed because it is merely a replacement for a prior Obama one, which Obama executive order with regard to a fence or a wall or you referring to?

theshrizzz wrote:The wall is a Sisyphean endeavor of hilarious proportions -- I'll be interested to see if he's actually able to complete it. There are probably hundreds of as-yet-undiscovered tunnels under the border as I type this, not to mention people hiding in secret compartments in vans and the new methods surely to be invented to cross by sea or air.

The Great Wall of China was built for somewhat similar reasons (to keep out some "other"); now it's a tourist attraction.

It is far from the most potentially damaging thing on Trump's agenda, but it's a ridiculous waste of money that is likely to be remembered as a laughingstock of an effort for years to come, to whatever level of completion it reaches.

It raises their costs and as we find those tunnels, it will raise them even higher

rickyp wrote:fate

It raises their costs and as we find those tunnels, it will raise them even higher

.
You're funny.
Drug lords don't pay contractors by the hour to build the tunnels. Its a more entrepreneurial, and rewarding system for the members of the gang. Their costs don't go up the way the costs of American buying Avacados or car parts will go up with a tariff.

Doctor Fate wrote:

rickyp wrote:fate

It raises their costs and as we find those tunnels, it will raise them even higher

.
You're funny.
Drug lords don't pay contractors by the hour to build the tunnels. Its a more entrepreneurial, and rewarding system for the members of the gang. Their costs don't go up the way the costs of American buying Avacados or car parts will go up with a tariff.

Don't worry about our "avacados" (sic). That tariff won't happen. It's negotiating.

Do tell us about how they pay for the tunnels. Have you done that kind of work, or are you a drug lord? You clearly have some expertise. How did you obtain it?

Tell you what: don't vote for Trump in 2020.

Oh, you can't vote? That's a real shame.

There is a book on the historical effectiveness of walls and security fences. Short term gain, long term pain. ''The Shield of Achilles,'' by Philip Bobbitt. It points how the Great Wall in China largely failed. How the impenetrable walls of Constantinople failed. Etc. There's always a way for them to eventually, and sometimes quickly, be circumvented or destroyed. All Trumps wall would do is maybe delay things. At an enormous cost.

danivon wrote:Don't we have an example already of one of Trump's EOs being executive overreach, with a judge ruling against one of the effects of the changes on immigration?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... ce-america

Ray Jay wrote:

danivon wrote:Don't we have an example already of one of Trump's EOs being executive overreach, with a judge ruling against one of the effects of the changes on immigration?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... ce-america

Yes; several judges. Terrible policy, terrible process.